Early Buddhist art and the theory of aniconism

by S. L. Huntington

Art Journal

Vol. 49 No. 4 Winter.1990

Pp.401-408

Copyright by Art Journal

In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, European and Indian
scholars were puzzled by the absence of anthropomorphic representations of
the historical Buddha Sakyamuni in the earliest surviving Buddhist art.
Early Buddhist art, it was assumed, either avoided Buddha images entirely,
or favored the use of symbols to refer to the Buddha or important events in
the Buddha's life. For example, the depiction of a specific tree in early
stone reliefs was interpreted to signify the Buddha's enlightenment beneath
the bodhi tree at Bodh Gaya (fig. 5). Similarly, portrayals of the wheel
representing Buddhist law were often thought to be symbolic representations
of the Buddha's first sermon at Sarnath (fig. 1). This supposed practice of
either avoiding images of the Buddha or using symbols as substitutes for
Buddha images became known as "aniconism."
For nearly a hundred years, the theory of aniconism has been universally
accepted in the interpretation of early Buddhist art. The early
twentieth-century writer Alfred Foucher was the first to articulate the
theory.[1] He based his ideas on the assumption that the earliest Buddha
images were those produced in the Gandhara region of ancient India during
the early centuries of the Christian era--more than half a millennium after
the Buddha lived. In Gandhara, he surmised, Indian artists were introduced
to what he considered a superior sculptural heritage--that of the Greek and
classical world--which stimulated the creation of anthropomorphic images of
the Buddha.[2] Indian sentiment was naturally offended at the suggestion
that Western influence was required to motivate the production of the
Buddha image. Ananda Coomaraswamy took the case to the Art Bulletin, where
he contended in a frequently cited article that the impetus for creating
the Buddha image was rooted in indigenous beliefs and sculptural
traditions.[3] At the same time, Coomaraswamy, like Foucher, accepted the
theory of aniconism to explain the art in which portrayals of the Buddha in
human form did not occur.
Considering some of the underlying principles of Buddhism, it has not been
difficult for scholars to suggest explanations for the absence of
anthropomorphic images of the Buddha in early Buddhist art. One author
notes that "the Buddha was not shown at all, to symbolize the fact that he
was nibbuta (`extinguished'),"[4] thus relating the notion of aniconism
with the very essence of Buddhism--the cessation of existence in physical
form. Another scholar cites a verse from the Suttanipata, which states, "He
who is passionless regarding all desires, Resorts to nothingness,"[5] to
suggest that the Buddha's transcendence of personal, egoistic existence may
be linked with the artistic phenomenon. This author further suggests that
"As flame... blown by the force of wind goes out and is no longer
reckoned.... Even so the sage, released from name and form, goes out and is
no longer reckoned,"[6] and concludes that the absence of Buddha figures in
human form in the early art reflects the Buddha's "true Nirvana essence
[which is] inconceivable in visual form and human shape."[7] While such
concepts are central to Buddhist thinking, they may not be pertinent to the
issue of aniconism. Although such references recur throughout Buddhist
literature, they do not directly address the issue of whether a Buddha
should be represented in human form.
So deeply embedded within a matrix of long-standing views of Buddhist
doctrinal, institutional, and sectarian history is the aniconic
interpretation of early Buddhist art that any erosion of the theory
threatens to crumble the foundations upon which decades of scholarship have
been built. Acceptance of a so-called period of aniconism preceding an
image-making phase has been so strong that a number of cases may be cited
where secure archaeological, inscriptional, and literary evidence to the
contrary has been dismissed to accommodate the theory.[8]
Nonetheless, a fresh analysis based on archaeological, literary, and
inscriptional evidence casts doubt on the practice of deliberate avoidance
of Buddha images. For instance, one of the cornerstones of the aniconic
theory has been that the early art reflected "Hmayana"[9] forms of Buddhism
and that "Hmayana" Buddhists had doctrinal proscriptions against the
creation of works of art showing Buddhas in their human forms. Proponents
of the theory have contended that the practice of creating anthropomorphic
representations of the Buddha was initiated only when Mahayana Buddhism
began to flourish around the early centuries of the Christian era. However,
one respected Buddhologist has recently suggested on the basis of textual
evidence that "Hinayanists" were probably as receptive to the making of the
image as Mahayanists.[10] Another distinguished Buddhologist has concluded
that the association of the Buddha image solely with Mahayana is incorrect
and that "almost all the Hinayana schools were actively interested in and
concerned with images and the cult of images."[11] Indeed, in the entire
corpus of Buddhist literature, scholars have been able to find only a
single, indirect reference to a proscription against the creation of Buddha
images, and that is limited to the context of a single Buddhist sect.[12]
Archaeological evidence also challenges one of the mainstays of the
aniconic theory, namely, the long-held conviction that the Buddha image was
first created during the Kusana period around the first or second century
A. D. Recently a number of sculpted Buddha images belonging to the
pre-Kusana period have been identified.[13] The existence of these
pre-Kusana sculpted Buddhas undermines the theory that Kusana patronage was
responsible for the introduction of anthropomorphic Buddha images. The
early date of these images confirms that representations of Buddhas were
being produced at the same time as the so-called aniconic reliefs, thus
suggesting that the absence of Buddha images in the reliefs cannot be
attributed to widespread prohibitions against the creation of Buddha
images.
The widening gap between recent historical, art-historical, and textual
evidence and the traditional aniconic theory raises many questions. Can it
still be assumed that the pre-Kusana reliefs that do not depict the Buddha
in human form reflect a deliberate avoidance of his portrayal? Might there
be other explanations for the apparent absence of Buddha figures in the
early reliefs? Can the recently identified Buddha images from pre-Kusana
times be reconciled with the other artistic remains of those periods? And,
most importantly if the subjects of the hundreds of pre-Kusana reliefs do
not contained veiled references to a being who is never shown, what might
they have been intended to communicate?
At present, I am engaged in a detailed study that explores the early art of
Buddhist India with these questions in mind and offers new interpretations
of the content of these carvings. The corpus of socalled aniconic reliefs
displays a variety of subjects, including abstract. animal, and foliate
motifs, nature spirits, and narrative scenes. Among these, the narrative
scenes are of the greatest importance to the study of the problem of
aniconism, for the vast majority are generally identified either as events
in the life of the historical Buddha Sakyamuni (ca. 560-480 B.C. ) or as
depictions of jataka stories relating his previous lives.[14]
This article presents some of my findings in a preliminary fashion by
focusing on one type of representation.[15] Specifically, I will examine a
type of relief that is among those that are usually said to illustrate
scenes from the life of the Buddha, with the Buddha, however, not depicted.
It is possible that most, if not all, of these compositions do not
represent events in the life of the Buddha at all, but rather portray
worship and adoration at sacred Buddhist sites. Although some of these
reliefs may depict devotions made at sacred sites even while the Buddha was
still alive, most of them probably show the sites as they were worshiped
after the lifetime of the Buddha. Further, I hope to show that the
so-called aniconic symbols, such as empty thrones, trees, wheels, and
stupas (hemispherical structures containing relics), were not intended by
the makers of the reliefs to serve as surrogates for Buddha images, but
were the sacred nuclei of worship at these sites. The reliefs, then, are
essentially "portraits" of the sites and show the practices of pilgrimage
and devotion associated with them.[16]
A comparison between an iconic image of the Buddha's first sermon and an
image that has been identified as an aniconic version of the same scene
demonstrates the visual and thematic differences between the two types. In
the so-called aniconic type, seen in a first-century A.D. relief at Sanchi,
a large wheel is the central object in the composition (fig. 1). The
wheel--the Buddhist wheel of law (righteousness)-is invariably associated
with the Buddha's first sermon, during which he is said to have set the
wheel of law in motion. Therefore, compositions like this are generally
identified as depictions of the Buddha's first sermon with the Buddha not
shown in anthropomorphic form. The other image, a second-or third-century
A.D. relief from the Gandhara region of Pakistan, is of the "iconic" type
and bears a figure of a Buddha seated upon a throne (fig. 2). Like most
images showing a Buddha, this carving is later in date than most of the
"aniconic" images. In the Gandharan relief, the Buddha is portrayed along
with five ascetics and a pair of deer flanking a wheel below. These
elements typify illustrations of the Buddha's first sermon, which he
delivered to an audience of five heretics at the Deer Park and at Benares.
Three additional figures, distinguished by their costumes, are also in
attendance, although their presence is not requisite in the scene.
Two observations may be made about reliefs that actually portray Buddha's
life events: (1) the place being shown is the place where the event
occurred, and (2) the time of the activity depicted in the composition is
the time of the event itself. These two conditions generally are not
present or even implicit in reliefs of the "aniconic" type, such as the
scene showing the wheel. Earlier scholars have assumed that compositions
like this record events during the lifetime of the Buddha, in spite of both
the absence of the Buddha and the presence of other elements in the
composition that indicate that another activity is occurring. Without
accounting for the counterevidence, they have concluded that such
compositions represent Buddha life scenes with the Buddha absent.
Place and time, which are explicitly indicated in iconic images of Buddha's
life events, are key issues in the interpretation of the aniconic reliefs,
as may be clarified by examining a recently discovered image from Amaravati
(fig. 3). This second-century A.D. carving depicts neither a nonfigurative
subject nor a Buddha. Instead, it shows what is clearly a Buddha image
placed upon a throne. The focus of the relief is a rectangular throne,
behind which is an asvattha tree, as identified by the shape of its leaves.
Upon the throne rests a rounder bearing a figure of a seated Buddha
displaying the gesture of reassurance with his right hand. A pair of
footprints appears below. To the far right and rear of the pictorial space,
a portion of a roofed building or pavilion is visible. Flanking the central
throne and tree is a pair of figures (that on the viewer's left being badly
damaged). These figures are seated with one leg pendant on platforms that
flank the central altar, and the figure at the right holds a fly whisk over
his right shoulder.
There is no doubt that this relief represents a certain place. The setting
of the relief is strikingly suggested by the building at the right rear,
which apparently is included as part of the portrayal of the site. It seems
clear that the scene is not an event in the life of Buddha, since the
Buddha is not present and he (or another Buddha) is specifically depicted
in an image. Because the scene does not represent a life event of the
Buddha, one cannot even be certain that the place being depicted is one
where an event in the Buddha's Iife occurred. The presence of the asvattha
tree might imply that the site was Bodh Gaya, but, as is well known,
specimens of the asvattha tree, the enlightenment or bodhi tree of
Sakyamuni Buddha, are sacred and are enshrined throughout the Buddhist
world. The Buddha in the rounder is not in the earth touching gesture that
characterizes representations of his imminent enlightenment at Bodh Gaya,
thus providing further evidence that the site is not Bodh Gaya. One can
only say that the scene represents a Buddhist sacred spot, or pitha.
Regarding the time of the event, the presence of the image suggests that
the scene probably occurred after the lifetime of the Buddha.[17] Scholars
have assumed that all the early reliefs of the type under discussion--both
the "iconic" and "aniconic" examples--were meant to indicate an event
during the lifetime of the Buddha, but it is clear that another alternative
exists: I contend that at least some of the so-called aniconic scenes
depict sacred locations of Buddhism being visited by laypersons, most
likely some time after the Buddha had lived. A number of features in the
"aniconic" carvings of this type, such as the devout worshipers in the
Sanchi scene (fig. 1), clearly indicate this type of practice.
The strongest and perhaps most unequivocal evidence that the scene showing
the veneration of the wheel of law (fig. 1) and numerous other so-called
aniconic reliefs are depictions of sacred places, with lay practitioners
worshiping at them (and not events in the life of the Buddha), is the body
of inscriptions associated with some of the "aniconic" reliefs from Bharhut
dating from the first century B.C. One critic of my theory has accused me
of being "blissfully unaware of the plethora of inscriptions at Bharhut
that specifically identify these representations as events in the Buddha's
life." [18] On the contrary, a closer examination of the inscriptions
reveals that they argue strongly for my case, because many of the epigraphs
clearly indicate places, not events. Indeed, it is precisely the confusion
of location and event that is at the root of what I believe to be the
misperception about many of the early reliefs.
Several examples from Bharhut clarify the issues relating to this
confusion. One of the most incontrovertible illustrations is a cat
first-century B.C. rounder showing a tree with an altar in front of it
being venerated by a male and female couple and a pair of children (fig.
4). The inscription accompanying this relief says bhagavato Vesabhuna bodhi
salo, that is, "The Bodhi tree of the holy Vesabhu (Visvabhu), a Sala
tree."[19] The inscription clearly identifies the scene as a representation
of the tree of enlightenment (bodhi tree) of the Buddha Visvabhu, one of
the mortal Buddhas who preceded Sakyumuni in time. In other words, the
relief depicts the tree under which the enlightenment took place, but not
the event of Buddha Visvabhu's enlightenment itself. The inscription
implies the location--the place where the tree was rooted--while the human
figures and other elements in the rounder indicate the activity that is
taking place. The rounder features the tree, an altar for offerings, and
the human devotees who are worshiping the tree by draping it with garlands,
making offerings, and kneeling in respect. It is clear that the relief
illustrates activities that are taking place at the holy site some time
after Visvabhu's enlightenment. Further, the scene is clearly an exaltation
of Buddhist devotion, specifically lay devotion, since the figures are lay
worshipers, as indicated by their secular garb.
Several other reliefs from the Bharhut railing show the trees of other
mortal Buddhas and are accompanied by inscriptions indicating that the
scenes represent the sacred trees at their sacred sites, rather than
enlightenment events. The most detailed of these compositions shows an
elaborate temple enshrining an asvattha tree, the bodhi tree of Sakyamuni
(fig. 5). This first century B.C. panel is commonly said to represent the
enlightenment of the Buddha, with the Buddha absent due to aniconic
interdictions. However, the inscription that accompanies this carving says
bhagavato Sakamunino bodho,[20] that is, the bodhi (tree) of holy
Sakyamuni, and thus parallels the inscription identifying the tree of
Buddha Visvabhu.[21]
The composition includes a depiction of a platform with the tree, a
building, and worshipers. There is no evidence from surviving literary or
archaeological sources that any kind of temple existed at the site when the
Buddha meditated under his sacred tree. Indeed, Emperor ASoka (r. cat
272-231 B.C. ) is credited with having built the first important temple at
Bodh Gaya, and therefore the presence of the temple suggests that the
depiction shows the site in the Asokan period or later. Furthermore, an
examination of the activity in the relief reveals that it is a
representation of human devotees, specifically lay devotees, worshiping the
sacred spot. Therefore, though it is certain that the relief portrays the
tree under which the Buddha became enlightened at Bodh Gaya, there is every
evidence that the event portrayed is not the enlightenment itself.
A comprehensive study of the other inscriptions at Bharhut confirms that
many of the compositions commonly identified as Buddha life events with the
Buddha lacking are instead depictions of sacred sites, including devotional
activities at these sites. The major scholars who have studied the
inscriptions during the past century have read the pertinent epigraphs in
the manner I describe here.[22] Nonetheless, those discussing the art have
invariably misconstrued the contents of the inscriptions--if they have
consulted them at all--to refer to Buddha life events. Thus, their
identifications of the activities and subjects shown in the reliefs have
conformed to the assumption that the subjects are life scenes with the
Buddha absent. Even Heinrich Luders, who so carefully reread and analyzed
the inscriptions, entitled one of his chapters "Inscriptions Attached to
Scenes of Buddha's Life," in spite of the fact that his own translations of
the inscriptions did not support the identification of the scenes as events
in the life of the Buddha.[23]
Another example of a so-called aniconic composition that invites a new
interpretation is an uninscribed carving from Bharhut traditionally
identified as the Buddha's descent from Trayastrimsa heaven at the site of
Sankasya (fig. 6). The usual interpretation of this cat first-century B.C.
relief is that the ladder by which the Buddha made the descent is shown in
the center of the composition, but due to the presumed aniconic
proscriptions, the Buddha was not shown. However, the theory that I am
proposing--that reliefs like this portray a place but not an event of the
Buddha's life--allows another interpretation that perhaps better accounts
for the elements depicted in the relief. The figures appear to move as if
in a clockwise procession around the ladders in the nearly ubiquitous
circumambulation ritual used inewitness accounts of Buddhist pilgrims to
Sankasya and archaeological evidence at the site indicate that as early as
the third century B.C. Sankasya had become a major pilgrimage center and
that an actual set of stairs--perhaps the very ones depicted in this
relief--were the focal point of worship. Regarding the ladders, the
seventh-century Chinese pilgrim Xuanzang (Hsuan-tsang) observed:
Some centuries ago, the ladders still existed in their original position,
but now they have sunk into the earth and disappeared. The neighboring
princes, grieved at not having seen
them, built up of bricks and chased stones ornamented with jewels, on
the ancient foundations (three ladders) resembling the old ones. They
are about 70 feet high. Above them they built a vihara in which is a
stone image of Buddha, and on either side of this is a ladder with the
figures of Brahma and Sakra, just as they appeared when first rising
to accompany Buddha in his descent.[24]
Thus, at one ]time the focus of devotion at Sankasya had apparently been a
set of stairs erected by the early royalty of India. Therefore, instead of
representing the Buddha life event itself, with the main actors missing,
the Bharhut carving seems to show a later worship scene at the holy site of
Sankasya, where the descent took place.
Another panel from Bharhut, dating from about the first century B.C., shows
a subject common in the early Buddhist relief art of India, a depiction of
a stupa (fig. 7). Because the Buddha's relics were divided and enshrined in
eight stupas shortly after his demise, depictions of stupas in the early
art are often said to depict the Buddha's great decease (parinirvana). Yet,
as in other reliefs already discussed, the presence of lay worshipers in
the composition suggests that the main subject of the carving is the
practice of making pilgrimage to the sacred sites where relics of the
Buddha were housed. The pillar crowned with addorsed lions at the left
suggests that the stupa site is shown as it appeared after around the third
century B.C., when Emperor Asoka erected numerous similar pillars at the
sacred sites of Buddhism. Many other reliefs at Bharhut and other sites
show a wheel, a tree, a stupa, a pillar, or other type of monument, and I
believe these also should be interpreted as depictions of places, not
events with the main actors missing. At least by Asoka's time in the third
century B.C., numerous places associated with the Buddha had become famous
pithas (holy "seats," i.e., holy places), and shrines, pillars, or other
monuments had been erected at them. The almost invariable presence of
devotees and worshipers in such compositions suggests that it is not a
historical event in the life of the Buddha that is being represented, but
rather the activities of darsana--of "seeing" a sacred place, person, or
object--and the associated devotional practices.[25]
Inasmuch as specific sacred sites were the focus of many of the early
reliefs, the significance attached to pilgrimage to these locations forms
an important background for understanding early Buddhist art. The Buddha
himself, upon his deathbed, instructed his followers to make pilgrimage to
the sites of the four main events of his life: his birth, enlightenment,
first sermon, and death (parinirvana).[26] The practice of making such
pilgrimages was popularized in the third century B.C. by Emperor Asoka,
Buddhism's paradigmatic lay devotee, whose pious journey was immortalized
in the Asokovadana.[27] The same text also records Asoka's well-known
embellishment of the sacred sites of Buddhism with architectural and
artistic creations, some of which may be depicted in the "aniconic"
compositions. The presence of lay worshipers in virtually all of the
reliefs in question supports the theory that they record a practice of lay
devotion. A number of reliefs specifically show devotees performing the
Buddhist rite of circumambulation, which may be ascertained by the
depiction of the figures as if turning in space as they walk around a
sacred object of devotion (fig. 8).
The reinterpretation of the reliefs as depictions of places rather than
events bears directly upon the issue of whether the various objects that
appear in the reliefs, like wheels, sacred trees, stupas, or pillars, are
"symbolic" representations of the Buddha. If we consider that these reliefs
may represent sacred places, then it would follow that the artists would
depict the focal point of worship at each of them. In representations of
the site of Bodh Gaya, the temple and/or the tree might be shown (fig. 5);
in representations of Sarnath, a wheel or temple with an enclosed wheel
could be depicted.[28] The place where the Buddha's death took place, or
the sites where his relics were enshrined, might be shown by a rendering of
a stupa. Similarly, depictions of other sites might be portrayed by
illustrations of their identifying or most characteristic features.
That objects installed at Buddhist sacred sites can be worthy of devotion
in their own right and not merely substitute for a forbidden
anthropomorphic rendering of a Buddha is attested by a phenomenon seen in
Sri Lankan Buddhism. The phenomenon is likely to have had an Indian source,
perhaps in the early Buddhism of the period of concern to the aniconic
question (ca. second century B.C. through the first century A.D.). Based on
the belief that the Buddha visited their island three times, Sri Lankan
Buddhist revere the places he visited or rested, and sites housing some of
his relics. These, along with several other sacred sites, have been
codified into a cult of the Sixteen Great Places, which are the focus of
Sri Lankan pilgrimage and constitute a central theme in the art and
literature of the country. Most Buddhist temples in Sri Lanka bear painted
or sculpted depictions of the sixteen sites, and the motif appears commonly
on other types of objects, such as Buddhist books covers (fig. 9). At first
glance, such depictions could be interpreted as symbolic representations of
the Buddha, for they show sacred trees, stupas, or footprints. However, in
Sri Lanka there is no doubt that these are portraits of sacred places.
The importance of a cult of pilgrimage to the sacred sites of Buddhism is
also verified from Buddhist texts that describe the three types of relics
(cetiya) that the Buddha is said to have left after his death: (1) sariraka
(pieces of the body), (2) paribhogaka (things he used), and (3) uddesaka
(reminders, i.e., representations, or images).[29] The meaning of sariraka
is eminently clear--here, Buddhists refer not only to the cremated ashes of
the Buddha, but also to any other bodily relic, such as a hair, a tooth, a
fragment of bone, or nails. Small caskets containing such sacred relics
became an important focal point of Buddhist worship, and monuments and
shrines said to contain such relics are found throughout the Buddhist
world. The second category of relic, paribhogaka, includes objects like his
robe, begging bowl, turban, and any chair or seat upon which he sat, among
others. The most important of the paribhogaka objects is the bodhi tree at
Bodh Gaya. But any place the Buddha visited, rested, or traversed would
also be considered paribhogaka. The third of the three types of relics are
the uddesaka, specifically, images (pratima) of the Buddha.
The aniconic theory encodes the expectation that the image of the Buddha
must be of primary importance and that other depictions, such as a bodhi
tree, were secondary substitutes for a figurative form. However, in the
Buddhist context it is primarily the sariraka and paribhogaka that have
provided the main impetus for pilgrimage and reverence at Buddhist sites.
In the Mahavamsa, the Buddha is cited as having pronounced: "In remembrance
that I have used these, do homage to them."[30] Further in the
"Mahaparinibbanasuttanta," the Buddha explains that such places should be
seen and admired, and that whoever dies with a contented mind while on a
pilgrimage will be reborn in heaven.[31] In a Sri Lankan monastery, the
most important element is the relic, which is enshrined in the mahastupa,
the focal point of the monastic plan. Second in importance is the bodhi
tree (mahabodhi), and indeed every monastery in Sri Lanka has at least one
major bodhi tree. Third in importance is the image house (pratimaghara).
Therefore, the image and image hall are far less important than the stupa
and the bodhi tree at Sri Lankan monasteries.[32]
While the Sri Lankan evidence does not prove the existence in India of such
a ranking, I believe that the importance of sariraka and paribhogaka relics
has been greatly underestimated by Western scholars, who have given the
idea of the image a primacy that it did not have in the early Buddhist
context. I propose that the sacred trees, stupas, and other features that
mark special places associated with the Buddha had inestimable importance
in their own right and that the cult of image worship was secondary. This
concept is expressed in the Commentary on the Vibhanga, wherein it states
that one obtains Buddhalambanapti (joy or ecstasy derived by looking at or
thinking about the Buddha) by looking at a stupa housing a relic of the
Buddha or a bodhi tree, but no mention is made of the merit gained by
looking at an image of the Buddha.[33] To view sacred trees, stupas, and
other such forms as substitutes or symbols for something else is to
misunderstand their intrinsic importance in the Buddhist scheme.
Essentially, I suggest that the early Buddhist art of India was not
primarily concerned with the biography of gakyamuni Buddha, as has been
assumed for so many decades. Instead, an important emphasis was placed on
the practice of lay devotion at the sacred sites of Buddhism. That merit is
derived from viewing the sacred traces of the Buddha is clear from the
literary sources and, I believe, the surviving artistic remains. That such
sanctified places (specifically "seats," or "pithas") are believed to
contain great power is also well known throughout the Buddhist world.
The many early Buddhist relief sculptures surviving today were not isolated
images, but were part of the adornment of major architectural structures.
Rather than serving as the focus of these monuments the reliefs played a
subsidiary role in the overall schemes. For the most part, the carved
reliefs were located on railings and gateways, or, in some cases, as part
of the facing of the exterior of stupas. In their secondary but essential
role, the images helped to communicate and reinforce the central meaning of
the monuments they adorned. Considering the function of these monuments as
repositories or adornments for important Buddhist relics, it is not
surprising that depictions of worshipers visiting similar places constitute
one of their major artistic themes. Further, since devotion to the relics
of the Buddha was an activity specifically associated with the laity rather
than with the clergy, the inclusion of lay worshipers as a prominent motif
in the carvings is fitting indeed.[34]
If the reinterpretation offered here is valid, one must ask how these
artistic remains have been so misunderstood by so many for so long. How did
the aniconic idea originate and what arguments were put forth to validate
the idea of the avoidance of Buddha images? How did the theory continue to
be reinforced and why was it never doubted? The history of the theory
provides some of the answers. Although nineteenth-century writers had
observed the absence of Buddhas in the early art of India, Foucher was the
first scholar to propound the theory of what has come to be known as
aniconism in early Buddhist art. Writing in the early twentieth century,
Foucher stated: "When we find the ancient stone-carvers of India in full
activity, we observe that they are very industriously engaged in carrying
out the strange undertaking of representing the life of Buddha without
Buddha."[35] Foucher further asserted: "Such is the abnormal, but
indisputable fact of which every history of Buddhist art will have at the
outset to render account."[36] Characterizing this phenomenon as a
"monstrous abstention,"[37] he read into the reliefs what a modern European
scholar unacquainted with the practices of early Buddhism might have
expected to be there. His premise that the lack of a Buddha image reflected
an abnormality became the foundation stone for the view that the art
created by these early Buddhists was a substitute for something else that
had been deliberately avoided.
Ultimately, Foucher's measuring rod of expectations led him and his
followers to overlook the intrinsic message of the art. The problem--the
misunderstanding of the thematic content of the art--is inextricably
related to and has been perpetuated by the terminology that has been used
to describe this artistic phenomenon. Using a term--aniconism--that defined
a phenomenon according to what it is not, scholars have been overly
concerned with what they believe should be in the art rather than with what
is actually there. Believing that the scenes shown on the monuments were
meant to illustrate episodes in the life of the Buddha, Foucher of course
found the absence of the Buddha figure perplexing. Inferring that the
objects in the reliefs--such as trees, stupas, and thrones--were intended
as symbols for something that was not shown, namely, an anthropomorphic
representation of the Buddha, Foucher and his followers were led astray
from the intrinsic meaning of the art.
While virtually all other authors espousing the aniconic theory have
assumed that there were religious interdictions against the creation of the
Buddha image, Foucher himself expressly stated that he knew of no textual
proscriptions against such a practice.[38] Foucher toyed with a number of
suggestions to explain the aniconic phenomenon and finally concluded that
the explanation is "in appearance . . . simpleminded enough, but one which,
in India, is still sufficient for all: 'If they did not do it, it was
because it was not the custom to do it.' "[39] The insubstantiality of his
explanation makes it difficult to comprehend how the theory he propounded
ever took root and has been embraced so tenaciously by generations of
scholars. Indeed, the development and passionate advocacy of the aniconic
theory constitutes an intriguing chapter in intellectual history and
involves an array of political, social, and cultural factors. For instance,
it is doubtful that the theory of aniconism would have achieved its
sanctified place in art-historical writings if the related issue of where
the first Buddha image was made had not been so hotly debated. Foucher and
his Western followers believed that the Buddha image was first created in
the GrecoRoman-influenced region of Gandhara, thus claiming an essentially
Western origin for the idea of the image.[40] Ananda Coomaraswamy and his
Indian nationalist sympathizers, perhaps attempting to cast off the yoke of
Western imperialism, asserted a strictly Indian origin at Mathura.[41] In
retrospect, the arguments can be viewed in light of twentieth-century
political issues that polarized European and Indian scholars. Yet so intent
was each cultural camp on claiming the primacy of its contribution to
Buddhist art, that other, potentially more important issues were
overlooked. Indeed, throughout the debate, what I believe to be a more
fundamental question was never posed: Was there really an aniconic
period?[42]
Because the idea of an aniconic period was never doubted, the
preconceptions associated with the theory of aniconism have saturated
art-historical thinking for nearly a century. The idea of aniconism has
been so thoroughly embedded in scholarly thought that it has led scholars
to misread inscriptions, dismiss literary documentation attesting to an
early image tradition, and express skepticism about scientific
archaeological data confirming the early existence of Buddha images.
Perhaps the most serious and far-reaching consequence has been in the area
of interpretation, in which scholars have misunderstood the subject matter
of the images and misread the overall message of the monuments the sculpted
images adorned. Assuming that the points I make in my full-length study are
valid, the conclusions will require a reexamination and probably a revision
of virtually all of these areas of study.[43]
I have suggested that the subjects in a specific type of composition are
not substitutes or symbols for something else, but are important emblems of
Buddhist devotion in their own right. While these early reliefs do not
contain Buddha figures, this absence is not to be explained by an aniconic
proscription or by the belief that these common motifs reflect a
substitution for a figure of a Buddha. Expressing concepts central to the
practice of Buddhism during this period, particularly relating to the
exaltation of lay worship, such carvings are completely compatible with the
recently proven existence of Buddha images even from early periods of
Indian history.
The emphasis on sacred pithas and pilgrimage to them in Buddhism has never
waned, although the "aniconic" period was brought to a close many centuries
ago. A record left by the thirteenth-century monk Dharmasvamin of his visit
to Bodh Gaya is especially interesting in light of the problem of
aniconism. Like earlier pilgrims to the sacred site, Dharmasvamin did not
find the living Buddha at Bodh Gaya. Instead, what he described is not
unlike what we see in some of the so-called aniconic reliefs, for he said
that "inside the courtyard stood the empty throne of Sakyamuni . . . which
was worshipped, and an eternal offering lamp was kept in front of it."[44]
Today, the sacred spot is also vacant, as it has been for two and a half
millennia. We, like the countless pilgrims who have visited Bodha Gaya
since the time the great sage sat there in deepest meditation, cannot
expect to see him there in the flesh. Yet we should not be disappointed at
the sight of an empty seat, for the power of the sacred Pitha still
resonates and can be felt by anyone who stands in the presence of the spot
where the Buddha-to- sat and was sheltered by the sacred tree on the day of
his awakening.
Notes
I am deeply indebted to Miranda Shaw for reading this manuscript and for
her many astute and valuable suggestions.
[1] Alfred Foucher, "The Beginnings of Buddhist Art," in his The Beginnings
of Buddhist Art and Other Essays in Indian and Central-Asian Archaeology
(Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1917), 1-29. This essay was originally published in
Journal Asiatique, January-February 1911.
[2] See Alfred Foucher, "The Greek Origin of the Image of the Buddha," in
Beginnings of Buddhist Art, 111-37. This essay was first presented as a
lecture at the Musee Guimet and published in Bibliotheque de vulgarisation
du Musee Guimet 38 (1913): 231-72.
[3] Ananda K. Coomaraswamy, "The Origin of the Buddha Image," Art Bulletin
9, no. 4 (1927): 287-328. The idea that Coomaraswamy propounded and became
famous for was in fact previously proposed by Victor Goloubew in his review
of Foucher's work, which Goloubew published in Bulletin de l'Ecole
Fran,caise d'Extreme-Orient 23 (1924): 438-54, esp. 451. Coomaraswamy also
presented his ideas in a shorter article that preceded the more definitive
article by a year. See Ananda K. Coomaraswamy, "The Indian Origin of the
Buddha Image," Journal of the American Oriental Society 46 (1926): 165-70.
[4] Richard E Gombrich, Precept and Practice: Traditional Buddhism in the
Rural Highlands of Ceylon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971), 112.
[5] David L. Snellgrove, ea., The Image of the Buddha (Paris: UNESCO,
1978), 23.
[6 ]Ibid.
[7] Ibid., 24.
[8] For example, the well-known gold and ruby reliquary found at Bimaran in
Afghanistan is generally assigned a date of about the second century A. D.
in spite of the virtually incontrovertible scientific evidence surrounding
it that suggests that it was made about the first century B.C. The
resistance to the early dating of the reliquary is based solely on the
assumption that Buddha images were not introduced into the Buddhist
artistic repertoire until the early centuries of the Christian era, and
therefore that any work that bears an image of the Buddha must be of a
comparably late date. For discussion, see Susan L. Huntington (with
contributions by John C. Huntington), Art of Ancient India (Tokyo and New
York: John Weatherhill, 1985), 629--30 n. 2.
[9] Here, I do not wish to address the problems associated with the term
"Hinayana, " but use it in its broadest sense to refer to the Theravada and
other Pali text-based non-Mahayana Buddhist traditions.
[10] Lewis R. Lancaster, "An Early Mahayana Sermon about the Body of the
Buddha and the Making of Images," Artibus Asiae 36, no. 4 (1974): 291.
[11] Gregory Schopen, "Mahayana in Indian Inscriptions," Indo-Iranian
Journal 21, no. I (January 1979): 16 n. 7.
[12] The allusion to a proscription occurs in the rules of the order
(vinaya) of the Sarvastivadin sect. See John C. Huntington. "The Origin of
the Buddha Image: Early Image Traditions and the Concept of
Buddhadarsanapunya," in Studies in Buddhist Art of South Asia, ed. A. K.
Narain (New Delhi: Kanak, 1985), 27.
[13] The scholars who have noted these images move the date of the advent
of the Buddha image earlier but do not question the existence of the
"aniconic" phase in art. See J. E. van Lohuizen-de Leeuw, " New Evidence
with Regard to the Origin of the Buddha Image," in South Asian Archaeology,
1979, ed. Herbert Hartel (Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag, 1981), 377-400;
and Domenico Faccenna, Excavations of the Italian Archaeological Mission
(IsMEO) in Pakistan: Some Problems of Gandharan Art and Architecture,
Central Asia in the Kushan Period--Proceedings of the Inter national
Conference on the History, Archaeology, and Culture of Central Asia in the
Kushan Period, Dushanbe, September 27-October 6, 1968, vol. 1 (Moscow,
1974), 126-76, esp. 174.
[14] The interpretation of jatakas, or stories of the Buddha's former
lives, also requires considerable revision according to the new evidence
and will be an important component of my longer study.
[15] The full, book-length study involves a thorough reexamination of the
artistic remains, the related body of inscriptions, and the early Buddhist
textual materials.
[16] It might be argued that in turn the use of an empty throne, a wheel, a
tree, or another nonfigurative object as the main focus of veneration at a
site is in itself proof of aniconism. That is, the installation and
veneration of nonfigurative forms might be seen as substitutes for Buddha
images. However, l believe that while such objects might be used to
commemorate Buddha life events, they are not meant to depict the events.
Therefore, they do not require an anthropomorphic representation of a
Buddha.
[17] It is possible that the scene could show veneration of an image of the
Buddha created during his lifetime, rather than after he had died. However,
this seems unlikely, because most of the other worship scenes seem to show
buildings and features that were added to the sacred sites long after the
lifetime of the Buddha.
[18] See Pratapaditya Pal's review of Huntington and Huntington, Art of
Ancient India in Arts of Asia 17, no. 3 (May-lune 1987): 128.
[19] Heinrich Luders, ea., Bharhut Inscriptions, rev. and supplemented by
Ernst Waldschmidt and Madhukar Anant Mehendale, Corpus Inscriptionum
Indicarum, vol. 2, pt. 2 (Ootacamund: Government Epigraphist for India,
1963), 83-84, inscription B14 on pl. 17.
[20] Ibid., 95-96, inscription B23 on pl. 37.
[21] The parallelism between this inscription and that referring to
Visvabhu Buddha's tree makes it implicit that the term bodhi refers to the
enlightenment tree, not the enlightenment event. For an inexplicable
reason, Luders translates the inscription as "The building round the Bodhi
tree of the holy Sakamuni (Sakyamuni)" (Luders, Bharhut Inscriptions, 95).
The inscription, however, is precisely parallel to those he examines in his
chapter on "Inscriptions Attached to Bodhi-Trees," wherein he correctly
translates the similar epigraphs as referring to the bodhi trees of the
various Buddhas. See Luders, Bharhut Inscriptions, 82-86, esp. 84.
[22] In addition to Luders' volume. see Alexander Cunningham, The Stupa of
Bharhut: A Buddhist Monument Ornamented with Numerous Sculptures
Illustrated of Buddhist Legend and History in the Third Century B.C.
(London: W. H. Allen and Co., 1879; reprint, Varanasi: Indological Book
House, 1962), and Benimadhab Barua, Barhut (Calcutta: University of
Calcutta, 1934; reprint, Patna: Indological Book Corporation, 1979). Ananda
K. Coomaraswamy was the exception. See Ananda K. Coomaraswamy, La Sculpture
de Bharhut, Annales du Musee Guimet, Bibliotheque d Art, n. s., 6 ( Paris:
Vanoest, 1956). In the reliefs showing the bodhi trees of the past mortal
Buddhas, he interpreted the term oodhi to refer to the respective Buddha's
enlightenment rather than the tree, except in the case of Visvabhu, where
the type of tree was named.
[23] Indeed, in his text, Luders even questions the interpretation of some
of the scenes as life events. See esp. LOders, Bharhut Inscriptions, 96,
where he discusses the relief illustrated here as fig. 5 and questions an
earlier scholar's interpretation of the relief as the Buddha's
enlightenment.
[24] Samuel Beal, trans., Si-yu-ki. Buddhist Records of the Western World.
Translatedfrom the Chinese Hiuen Tsiang (A.D. 629), 2 vols. (London:
Trubner and Co., 1884; reprint, Delhi: Oriental Books Reprint Corporation,
1969), 1: 203.
[25] Such sites are not always necessarily associated with gakyamuni
Buddha, but may be related to the previous mortal Buddhas or other great
Buddhist personages.
[26] T W. Rhys Davids, trans.. "The Maha-Parinibbana Suttanta, " in
Buddhist Suttas, Sacred Books of the East, vol. 11 (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1881; reprint, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1968), 90.
[27] See John S. Strong, The Legend of King Asoka: A Study and Translation
of the Asokovadana (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983).
[28] Scenes that show a wheel as the main object of veneration are not
necessarily references to Sarnath, since the Buddha taught at a number of
places. Thus, the site depicted in fig. 1 may or may not be a reference to
Sarnath.
[29] A fourth cetiya, dhammacetiya, is also sometimes cited, referring to
the doctrinal reminders, such as the written and oral canonical texts. See
Stanley J. Tambiah, "Famous Buddha Images and the Legitimation of Kings:
The Case of the Sinhala Buddha (Phra Sihing) in Thailand," Res, Autumn
1982, 5 n. 4.
[30] Wilhelm Geiger, trans., The Mahavamsa or the Great Chronicle of Ceylon
(1912; reprint, London: Luzac and Co. for the Pali Text Society. 1964), 7.
[31] Rhys Davids, "The Maha-Parinibbana Suttanta," 91.
[32] Walpola Rahula, History of Buddhism in Ceylon: The Anuradhapura
Period, 3rd Century 8. c . - 1Oth Century A.C., 2nd ed. (Colombo: M. D.
Gunasena and Co., 1966), 120-21.
[33] Ibid., 126-27.
[34] Affer the death of the Buddha, his relics were entrusted to members of
the laity, not the clergy Although members of the Buddhist clergy of course
also revere the Buddha's relics, the activity of devotion to them is
especially characteristic of the laity For the division of the relics among
the kings of ancient India, see Rhys Davids, "The Maha-Parinibbana
Suttanta, " 131-36.
[35] Foucher, "The Beginnings of Buddhist Art," 4.
[36] Ibid., 5.
[37] Ibid., 7.
[38] Ibid.
[39] Ibid.
[40] For Foucher's views, see "The Greek Origin of the Image of the
Buddha."
[41] For Coomaraswamy's arguments, see "The Origin of the Buddha Image."
[42] An important aspect of my full study will be an examination of the
historiography of the theory of aniconism, namely, the intellectual,
social, and political processes by which the original idea was proposed,
perpetuated, and ultimately canonized. By examining the origin of the idea
in the writings of Foucher and tracing the concept of aniconism and its
alter ego, the "origin" of the Buddha image. I hope to show how the issues
were clouded by Western imperialism and Indian nationalism. By studying how
the idea of aniconism became so thoroughly entrenched in scholarly thinking
and why it is so staunchly defended, I hope also to contribute to knowledge
about nineteenth- and twentieth-century intellectual history by exploring
the relationships between scholarly work and other political, social, and
cultural agendas.
[43] At this time, I am unable to predict whether there are indeed some
images that require a Buddha figure and must be seen as truly "aniconic" in
the sense that they employ a symbol as a substitute for what should be an
anthropomorphic representation. However, even if a few images are truly
aniconic, the vast majority are not, and the role of "aniconism" has been
vastly overemphasized, ultimately leading to the misinterpretation of most
of the extant art.
[44] George N. Roerich, trans., Biography of Dharmasvamin (Chag lo tsa-ba
Chos-rje-dpal), A Tibetan Monk Pilgrim (Patna: K. R Jayaswal Research
Institute, 1959), 71.
PHOTO (BLACK & WHITE): Figure 1 Devotion to a Buddhist Wheel, carving on
railing, cat second or third decade of 1st century A.D., stone. Stupa 2,
Sanchi, Madhya Pradesh, India.
PHOTO (BLACK & WHITE): Figure 2 Sakyamuni Buddha's First Sermon, from
Gandhara region, Pakistan, Kusana period, cat 2nd or 3rd century A.D.,
stone. Lahore Museum, Lahore, Pakistan.
PHOTO (BLACK & WHITE): Figure 3 Devotion to an Image of a Buddha, from the
Amaresvara Temple, Amaravati, Andhra Pradesh, India, cat Iate 2nd century
A.D., stone. Amaravati Site Museum, Amaravati, India.
PHOTO (BLACK & WHITE): Figure 4 The Bodhi Tree of Visvabhu Buddha, from
Bharhut, Madhya Pradesh, India, Sunga period, cat 100-80 B.C., stone.
Indian Museum, Calcutta.
PHOTO (BLACK & WHITE): Figure 5 The Bodhi Tree of Sakyamuni Buddha, from
Bharhut, Madhya Pradesh, India, Sunga period, cat 100-80 B.C., stone.
Indian Museum, Calcutta.
PHOTO (BLACK & WHITE): Figure 6 Devotion at Sankasya, from Bharhut, Madhya
Pradesh, India, Sunga period, cat 100-80 B.C., stone. Indian Museum,
Calcutta.
PHOTO (BLACK & WHITE): Figure 7 Devotion at a Buddhist Stupa, from Bharhut,
Madhya Pradesh, India, Sunga period, cat 100-80 B.C., stone. Indian Museum,
Calcutta.
PHOTO (BLACK & WHITE): Figure 8 Devotees circumambulating a Buddhist Pillar
with a Wheel Capital, railing pillar, Sunga period, cat 1st century B.C.,
stone. Bodha Gaya.
PHOTO (BLACK & WHITE): Figure 9 The Sixteen Great Places of Pilgrimage in
Sri-Lanka (far left stupa not shown in photo), design on a silver book
cover from Kandy, Sri Lanka, cat Iate 18th or early 19th century. Los
Angeles County Museum of Art, Herbert Cole Bequest.